Student Voices

Cartoon depicting a police officer taking the shirt off of an individual's back and declaring that it was used in a crime.

Civil Forfeiture’s Access to Justice Problem

By |

File this one under “historic laws in need of modernizing.” Civil forfeiture—the act of seizing and forfeiting physical property, regardless of whether an individual has been charged with a crime — has its roots in customs and piracy cases. But today, in addition to serving as a tool to pad police department’s budgets, it more often keeps cars, cash, and possessions out of the hands of potentially innocent individuals with no guarantee of legal representation. The result is an access to justice failure, as reported by HLS student Joe Liberman in this week’s “Student Voices” blog and podcast episode.

Cartoon depicting a parent and child stuck on a life boat with the S.S. Courthouse boat nearby holding case storage and S.S. Resources boat holding everything the parent and child need (social work, financial help, etc.).

Navigating Unmet Social Needs: A Closer Look at New York Family Courts

By |

In his 2026 State of the Judiciary Address, Hon. Rowan Wilson, Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, took the opportunity to bring attention to one of the state’s most critical access to justice problems: the difficulties families face while navigating New York Family Court. Despite judicial efforts to address families’ underlying social needs, the legislative and executive branches of the state—and in the larger context, the nation—have the responsibility to implement more lasting improvements.

Cartoon depicts inmate waiting to be admitted into a virtual child welfare hearing

Locked Out: Structural Barriers to the Child Welfare System for Incarcerated Parents

By |

For a child, parental incarceration is a legal gateway into the child welfare system. Parents have rights to participate in custody proceedings, but incarceration erects barriers that can make meaningful participation difficult. In this “Student Voices” post, we look at the current system–one in eight incarcerated parents lose their parental rights–and potential solutions to these barriers that, if left unchecked, can effectively lock incarcerated parents out of the child welfare process.

Cartoon depicting a multiple-choice case test for lawyers

Beyond the Bar: Measuring Real-World Legal Judgment

By |

If law could follow medicine to better the field and those working in it, we could see standardized case tests coming to measure lawyers’ decision-making abilities. That’s the argument made by HLS J.D. candidate Michael Pusic in this bonus Proof Over Precedent post. Multiple-choice case evaluations could objectively assess lawyers’ decision-making, improve training and hiring, and determine best use of legal assistance.

Cartoon comparing a household of neglect due to poverty vs. a household with a little more money running smoothly.

At the Poverty Line: Is Money the Root of Family Stability?

By |

Eight hundred families in Illinois–and the researchers working with them–are about to find out. With monthly cash gifts of varying denominations dependent on family size and local cost of living, participants of the EmPwR Study will gain firsthand knowledge of whether a year of guaranteed income will stave off child welfare involvement. HLS J.D. candidate Julia Saltzman examines the relationship between poverty and family regulation system involvement and shares details on the randomized controlled trial taking place in urban, suburban, and rural communities in Illinois.

Cartoon depicts individual begging for cash bail to a robot judge who is refusing it

The ‘Robopocalypse’ Fallacy: Lessons from California on Ending Cash Bail

By |

“Replacing cash bail: Fairer justice or robopocalypse?” This headline from a 2020 California news article encapsulates the rhetoric at the time surrounding Proposition 25, a California referendum to eliminate cash bail and provide judges making pretrial release decisions with a risk assessment instrument.

The association of ending cash bail with algorithmic decision-making embodies a complexity that members of the bail reform movement everywhere can examine in future efforts to bring greater access to justice for pretrial detainees.

Cartoon depicting an individual listening to music but bound to a ball and chain marked by a contract

Do Consumers Fare Better in Court or Mandated Arbitration? 

By |

Conflicting research exists to address whether consumers who “agree” to mandatory arbitration clauses have worse outcomes compared to consumers who are free to litigate in courts. Courts typically assume that by entering a contract mandating arbitration, each party freely bargained for that clause. While there are concerns about how knowingly consumers agree to arbitration clauses, HLS J.D. candidate Rachel Barkin writes about consumer outcomes, based on the dispute resolution process, and potential areas for future research.

Cartoon depicting the clear path to a life without parole sentence, in comparison to the procedural safeguards to a death sentence

Life Without Parole: A Call for Legal Reform

By |

Life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) is often considered a better alternative to capital punishment. But death sentences carry certain safeguards to minimize error rates including counsel at all stages of the criminal process, federal scrutiny of sentences, appeals at the state level, pro bono firm support, and media attention. And yet, about 40 percent of death sentences in a 22-year time frame were overturned. Without those same safeguards, LWOP would likely have at least similar error rates—if only we knew. HLS student Kristen Arnold argues for evidence-based research to determine whether the absence of counsel and appeals reveal errors worth reforming procedural protections for those sentenced to life without parole.

Cartoon depicting a child welfare agent entering a home, without a judge's order, in the name of children's safety

Family Miranda: Expanding Due Process Rights to Child Welfare Investigations

By |

Texas’s 2023 “Family Miranda” law requires child welfare investigators to inform parents of their due process rights at the beginning of an investigation. The intent is to reduce unnecessary state intervention, trauma, and coercion. The law passed with bipartisan support and ultimately clarifies existing law, rather than creates new law. In this “Student Voices” blog, HLS student Julia Saltzman calls for a randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of the law in improving fairness and reducing unnecessary interventions.

Scroll to Top